Dave Epp
Chatham-Kent—Leamington, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago.”
“We are celebrating that in the Vineland region, where my great-grandmother is buried. That same Gerhard Neufeld who was decorated by the czar was shot dead in his bed, five days before they came to Canada. My great-grandmother left, bringing five children, and I and my mother are here because of that history.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber. I come today representing, especially, both the people of Ukrainian ethnicity and those of Ukrainian heritage. There is actually a difference, and I am going to come back to that in a moment.”
“Rather than serving in the army, he served in what was called the Forsteidienst , the forestry service, so he was stationed on the banks of the Black Sea at the czar's summer resort, Yalta.”
“They came to the steps of Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great to farm, to break those steppes of Ukraine, and they turned that into part of the breadbasket of Europe. That heritage is in my blood today. They were told, actually, that the territory at the time was empty.”
“As many members know, I am from a Mennonite background, and there are a number of Mennonites here in the chamber who have the honour of representing their constituencies. This year marks 100 years since all four of my grandparents came to Canada from, at the time, the steppes of Russia, which is now part of Ukraine.”
The complete record
Every one of 159 lines we hold for Dave Epp, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“Speaker, you may rule me out of order with this next statement. I know that I cannot refer to any other member by their last name, but I am unsure whether I can refer to myself. My last name, as members all know, is Epp. I am not the first Epp who has graced this chamber floor. There have been others. In fact, going across Canada, there are at least seven different Epp families that are unrelated to each other. The former minister of health under the Mulroney government, Jake Epp, was no relation to me or my wife. Why is that important? My wife's maiden name was Epp. Before any member in the chamber jumps to any conclusions, I want to state that all six fingers on both hands of all four of our daughters are beautiful. Why is that important? My wife was born in New Westminster, British Columbia, and was adopted.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. I am pleased to add my support to Bill C-222 . I want to add some context. This issue has been around the chamber for some time, and I want to add my acknowledgement to the work put into this by my former colleague, the member for Banff—Airdrie, who put forward Motion No. 110 in a previous Parliament. Certainly, through previous governments, we have been pushing for this from this side of the table. I want to acknowledge that that effort is paying off, and today we are finding compassionate support around the chamber to address the needs of those at some of their hardest points in life. I am going to end up speaking personally, so I will try to get there, but before I go there, Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for making that speech and for bringing the bill forward. It is going to allow me to raise my son's name: Brenton. I spent 31 days in the NICU, 37 years ago. He did not make it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member across the way stated that this side of the House supported a moratorium on immigration, which is patently misleading. What we have stated is that the non-partisan consensus on immigration has been broken by the government. For 30-plus years, between 300,000 and 500,000 people came to Canada and valued this country, and that number bounced around because of economic circumstances and the situations around the world. That consensus was broken when the numbers skyrocketed past one million per year for three years. That was not fair to the immigrants coming in, and it is not fair to Canadians who then faced housing, medical and other shortages in this country. Would the member opposite not agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for the passion and knowledge she brings to this debate. My question is, why? There is so much value to Canadian citizenship that is recognized around the world. Why does the government want to cheapen it?”
“Mr. Speaker, finally, I present, on behalf of the citizens of Canada, a petition on religious charities. They play a significant role in the charitable sector and in the life of our country. More than 30,000 charities fall under the purpose “advancement of religion”, roughly 42% of the charitable sector. These religious communities foster vibrant social networks, mobilize outreach, spark local volunteerism and foster community resilience. Therefore, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the government to reject the finance committee's recommendation to remove advancement of religion as a charitable purpose.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians with mental illness should be provided with treatment and support. Mental illness is a complex that can include suicidal thoughts as a symptom. The lives of many Canadians with mental illness are at risk when they are eligible for medical assistance in dying. Therefore, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the House to support Bill C-218 , which would reverse the law extending eligibility for MAID to those suffering from mental illness.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by many Ukrainian Canadians who support fellow community members who fled Ukraine following Russia's brutal aggression in their journey to become permanent residents. Since 2023, under the watch of the Liberal government, the family reunification pathway for Ukrainians has seen an abysmal approval rate of just 1.6%. Fewer than 400 of the more than 23,000 applications have received final decisions. Thousands more cannot even access this limited program. While Ukrainian Canadians are calling on the government to create a dedicated, one-time permanent residency pathway for those here under the CUAET agreement, the undersigned are urging the Liberal government to prioritize and expedite family reunification applications so that families can be reunited without further delay.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech, but I take no joy in it. I take no joy in us, as the opposition, having to bring this motion before this chamber. My question is, why? Why is the Prime Minister taking this country to the precipice? He comes from the private sector. He has personal wealth. Is he not hurting himself by bringing these disastrous policies to our country?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech, we are not opposed to oversight. We are not opposed to the effective functioning of government. We will see, on October 35, what exactly the state of our nation's finances are in. Additional spending that does not lead to meaningful outcomes for the benefit of Canadians in both indigenous and non-indigenous communities does not perform anything other than add to our inflationary debt. What we do not need is another function that can audit without the authority to compel. Those two things, the combination of the Auditor General's office and the ministerial functions that have the authority to compel, are the two ingredients we need in order to address the shortcomings of these treaties. We are not there yet; I acknowledge that, but we have the tools.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will discount the first option, because that is another unneeded layer when the mechanisms exist. As I outlined in my first response to my colleague across the way, the ministers have this authority. The Auditor General has already done the job, and I can list the six audits that have been provided. Why can the minister not empower and direct the departments to implement? That accountability mechanism exists, and the oversight of the minister exists through the processes we go through here on a daily basis, at two o'clock every day and 11 o'clock on Fridays. I will go with the expanded second option from my hon. colleague from the Bloc.”
“We have the opportunity to do this right now through ministerial mandates and through the accountability mechanism right in this chamber.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member. I know that his heart is in first nations communities and indeed all of Canada. The Conservatives support accountability. They support oversight. In fact, we go through an exercise here on a daily basis at two o'clock where we hold the government to account. That is part of our democratic process. The process of implementation and holding the government to account for the treaties negotiated should be done through the mandates instructed to the ministers. Then the House has the function, the duty, to hold the government to account for the implementation of the very treaties the government negotiates. What we do not need is another bureaucratic process where the government looks at itself.”
“If the Liberal government is serious about reconciliation, if it truly wants to honour the treaty process, then it must stop hiding behind additional bureaucracies and start doing the hard work, and it is hard work, that these audits have already identified and that reconciliation demands.”
“That is not reconciliation; that is obstruction. Let me be clear: My comments are not about opposing oversight. They are about opposing wasteful and ineffective oversight when existing tools, offices and audits are being ignored or sidelined. Bill C-10 risks spending more taxpayer dollars on bureaucrats who will audit the government's own failures without addressing the underlying issues. Rather than demanding accountability from the “Ottawa knows best” bureaucrats, the Liberals propose creating more new layers of bureaucracy and spending more money at a time when Canadians can ill afford it. What Canadians need is political will and action. They need ministers who take responsibility and provide direction, and departments that follow through on commitments and the direction provided.”
“It cannot be a one-sided declaration or a hidden agenda. It requires honest, open and transparent communication by all parties: indigenous and non-indigenous communities and the federal government itself. The current government seems more interested in creating new bureaucratic offices to audit and then report on itself, rather than rolling up its sleeves and getting the job done. Reconciliation must be built on mutual respect, open communication and transparency. It requires all sides to have a seat at the table and, most importantly, to know what is on the table in the first place. Bill C-10 would do nothing to fix these problems. It proposes yet another office, another layer and another report, all while the government continues to withhold basic information about the status of existing claims.”
“When information cannot be trusted, relationships between first nations and neighbouring communities are broken, stopping the advancement of reconciliation for everyone involved. This secrecy does a disservice to all Canadians. It hinders reconciliation. It undermines the ability of indigenous communities and their neighbours to work together on the basis of mutual respect. Both first nations and non-indigenous communities require clarity to plan their futures responsibly. This is a failing of government to do its due diligence of communicating to all parties in a treaty or settlement process. This is not something that will be fixed by adding another layer of bureaucracy within which the information has another chance to be lost, confused or misplaced from the public record. Reconciliation cannot be forced or imposed by Ottawa.”
“The information presented to the public regarding the status of that claim clearly stated that the second claim was not accepted for negotiations. However, behind closed doors, it has been revealed that this claim is considered open and is actively being used in land acquisition negotiations. It is this uncertainty that has caused tensions and concern for both Caldwell First Nation and the neighbouring municipality, which found themselves negotiating with the Government of Canada over the same piece of property. It is this type of inconsistent communication and lack of transparency that has caused first nations and neighbouring communities to have strained relationships due to misunderstandings.”
“This settlement did not hand over land directly, but set a 30-year timeline for the community to purchase properties at market value, from willing sellers to willing buyers, and then go through a federal additions-to-reserve process. This, too, is reconciliation in action: willing buyers and willing sellers working together, not a top-down Ottawa mandate. (1630) Unfortunately, the current Liberal government is not living up to that standard of transparency or respect for local municipalities and first nations. In July of this past year, a status report on claims by the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs was provided to a neighbouring municipality that had inquired about the status of a second claim made by the Caldwell First Nation.”
“My riding includes the Caldwell First Nation, which, incidentally, is located within a kilometre of where I presently live, and I recently joined the first nation for its first annual competitive powwow this past August. Caldwell First Nation concluded a settlement agreement, which culminated a decades-long process. In 1998, the Liberal government reached a settlement agreement in principle with Caldwell, but never followed through. It was the Conservative government led by former prime minister Stephen Harper that returned to the table in 2006 and finalized that $105-million settlement by 2010, which was then ratified by the community. The Caldwell First Nation officially secured reserve status in November 2020.”
“However, do not be fooled. This is not about achieving results; this is about avoiding scrutiny. This is not about the heart of the problem. The government does not want transparency. It does not want accountability. It wants to create another office that looks good on paper but does nothing to ensure that the indigenous communities see the benefits of real, concrete treaty implementation. It is all about appearance, not action. This is a failure, plain and simple, and it is the indigenous peoples of Canada who pay the price. I know reconciliation is not easy and we do not claim that it will ever be so, but it does require honest, transparent communication and mutual respect between indigenous and non-indigenous communities. It requires the government to stop standing in the way with secrecy and indecision. Let me elaborate.”
“On that note, under the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper, we negotiated five modern treaties within just six years. What about the Liberals? They have been in power for nearly 10 years and have negotiated how many? They have negotiated zero. For almost a decade, we have been bombarded with flashy announcements. The Liberals tell us they are in negotiations with 70 indigenous groups and we are supposed to believe they are doing something substantial, but here is the truth: It is nothing but a public relations exercise. These are announcements designed to impress the public, with no real outcomes. It is 10 years and there is not a single modern treaty deal. Now, the Liberals want to create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation and present it to the Canadian public as a new office, a new title and a new bureaucracy.”
“What the Liberal government is saying through the introduction of this bill is that it prefers to audit itself as opposed to having the independent Office of the Auditor General do the work. Why spend more taxpayer dollars at a time when Canadians are struggling with affordability, inflation and growing inflationary deficits in order to create another bureaucracy, a new one, to tell us what we already know? We do not need that. We need action. This is not a structural failure of oversight. This is a failure of political will and leadership. The ministers and the departments that they lead are responsible for ensuring that treaty negotiations and implementation happens effectively and transparently. This is what Canadians deserve of their government.”
“Instead of addressing the real issues, it proposes creating another layer of bureaucracy, an expensive new office here in Ottawa that would audit the government's performance and report to Parliament. What would that really accomplish? The answer is very little, because the government already has the tools for oversight. The Office of the Auditor General conducts regular audits into treaty negotiations, modern treaties, self-governance agreements, implementation and treaty land entitlements. It has completed nearly two dozen audit reports, including six audits on indigenous treaty implementations, since 2005. These reports clearly show where the federal government has fallen short.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place. I rise today to speak to Bill C-10 , an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. While the Liberal government claims this bill would improve accountability and help with reconciliation, my Conservative colleagues and I must oppose it. Let me very clear from the outset. Conservatives fully support treaty rights, negotiations and the ongoing process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. We recognize the importance of advancing self-determination and self-government. This is a priority we all share. However, this bill would miss the mark.”
“Mr. Speaker, with Thanksgiving just around the corner, let us reflect on some of the costs of the staples of the season: Apples are up 13%, sweet potatoes are up 8%, and chicken is up 10%. These increases are a direct result of the government's hidden food taxes: the industrial carbon tax, fuel standards regulations, the plastics ban and, especially, inflationary deficits. Given these costs, what exactly are Canadians supposed to be thankful for this year as they struggle to put a turkey on their table and the necessities in their refrigerator?”
“Madam Speaker, let me explain taxes to the people across the way. The consumer carbon tax was designed to raise the price and discourage use. Why do the Liberals not understand that, when they applied four more taxes to food, the prices would rise? They have applied the inflation tax from deficit-inducing margins and the industrial buried carbon tax. What else have they done? They have added a clean second carbon tax disguised as a fuel standard, and a fuel packaging tax disguised as a plastics ban. That is why food prices are rising. Does that not deserve an F grade?”
“Madam Speaker, what grade should we apply to the following statements? The average family of four is expected to spend over $800 more on food this year. Some 61% of Canadians fear that they will not be able to afford groceries in six months. Poverty and food insecurity have risen 40% in the past two years. Saddest of all, there were two million visits to food banks in 2023, with four million visits expected this year. Since the Prime Minister said he would be judged by the cost of groceries, how does it feel for him to flunk his own final exam, the one he himself wrote?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I believe is that Canadians were paying 3.4% more for their food this past year. Inflation is rising, that is what we are talking about, and it is because of government policies. That is what our opposition day motion is about. That is what we are trying to hold the government to account on. Not only that, but we are proposing solutions for it, and we are asking for the waste and deficit spending to be exposed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.”
“Mr. Speaker, regulation is not a bad word. Regulation is necessary. The point is that we need efficient regulation. We need an economic lens that is applied to regulatory structures so that we balance food safety with a proper response so that markets can function. Specifically, within the agri-food committee right now, we are looking at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We are looking at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. When it takes 11 years to review a project, that is ridiculous. Situations like that impose costs and delay on the industry. The burden of regulation is something that has come up over and over again. Regulation, properly done, is necessary. What the industry is experiencing now is unfathomable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will state upfront that I do not know what the government is going to do. I can see what it has done so far, and it is obviously not working. As I said in my comments, what we need to do, what the responsibility of government is, is to create the climate for the market to work, to drive innovation, to drive competition and to drive prices lower while maintaining profitability throughout the food value chain. There is nothing wrong with profit in there, but when there is unnecessary regulation, unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy that interferes with that, it adds unneeded costs and reduces profitability throughout the food chain.”
“Mr. Speaker, what gives is that food inflation this past August was 3.4%. What we are talking about today is the price of food and Canadians having access to safe and affordable food. What we are talking about is inflation. That is what Canadians are concerned about, not what is perhaps on or off a website. Canadians are not looking for that every day, but they are going to the grocery store and trying to fill their fridges.”
“We call on the government to appoint Jason Jacques, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for a full seven-year term; to be honest with Canadians about “how money-printing deficits will again cause rampant inflation of food, housing and other prices...when Canadians are [so] broke”; and to explain to Canadians “how big a financial mess [the Prime Minister has] made, with what is expected to be a 100 per cent increase in the deficit under [his] watch”. Just from the PBO's report this morning, in the absence of final financial results for the past year, we expect there would be a budget deficit of $51.7 billion in 2024-25, $68.5 billion this coming year and rising from there. To conclude, government policy can affect, positively or negatively, the price of food. The record over this past decade is self-evident.”
“The ban would also dramatically increase food waste costs that are embedded back into the system. The answer here is not banning single-use plastics but increasing recycling. We are the loyal opposition. We will oppose bad policy, but we will also propose solutions. Moving forward with positive actionables, here is what Canada must do. We must build a national agri-food brand and make Canada synonymous with safe, premium, innovative foods. We must treat food security as a national priority. We must modernize the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Approvals must take months, not years. We need to back entrepreneurs, cut costs in our transportation sector and other areas, and invest in processing. We will oppose, and we will propose, but we will also expose.”
“The third thing to be cut would be the clean fuel standard, better known as “carbon tax two”, again adding up to 16¢ or 17¢ per litre of diesel. Fuel is not an option for farmers. It drives the tractors. The consumer-facing carbon tax is gone; this cost is not, and it is buried. It is not transparent, and it gets passed on down to consumers. I mentioned before that farmers pay the costs of freight both ways. Transportation is involved in almost every step of the food value chain process, not only on the farms. That fuel cost is buried in every step of the way. Lastly is the food packaging tax, the plastics tax. Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental costs. According to the government's own analysis, banning single-use plastics would actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it.”
“Revenues now from the GST flow almost exclusively to cover the interest on the debt, and that is before we have this upcoming budget. With the budget delayed until, what is it now, October 35, we will only know about the budget two-thirds of the way into this fiscal year. Again, the PBO report this morning anticipates what those deficits will be. Canadians deserve a government that will cut wasteful spending so Canadians can afford to put food on their tables. There are human consequences to these policies: more empty stomachs. The Prime Minister promised affordable food, but now Toronto's food banks are expecting those previously mentioned four million visits. Also, 86,000 jobs were lost after he promised more jobs.”
“While the consumer-facing carbon tax has been removed, the buried industrial carbon tax remains, and its costs are embedded in several inputs in food production, including farm equipment and the production of fertilizers. Canada also remains the only G7 country to maintain tariffs on Russian fertilizers, effectively raising the cost of fertilizers sourced from anywhere in Canada. The U.S. never applied the tariffs, and this past year its imports of Russian fertilizers have rebounded higher than they were the last two years. Second is the inflation tax, the money-printing deficits. The previous Liberal government increased the money supply by 40% to address massive deficits while the GDP grew only 4%. The result, obviously, could be expected: inflation.”
“Farmers have many input suppliers, but whether it is from skyrocketing input costs, higher interest rates or burdensome regulations, Canadian farmers are being squeezed harder every year. Another expression is that farmers buy retail, sell wholesale and pay the freight both ways. I will come back to that in a moment. (1245) That is why Conservatives call on the Prime Minister to stop taxing food by eliminating the following four things. First is the industrial carbon tax on fertilizer and farm equipment. Statistics Canada has reported that realized net farm income fell 26% in 2024, the largest single decline in a decade. Meanwhile, rising costs for fuel, fertilizer and feed continue to make farming less economically viable.”
“The poverty rate in Canada has risen for three straight years in a row, and one of the main factors in food insecurity and poverty being up 40% is the fact that food prices are up 40% since the Liberals took power. We have heard the numbers today. In August alone, food inflation came in at 3.4%, well above the Bank of Canada's targets. According to the Food Banks Canada report, 25.5% of households are struggling to afford food; this is up from 18.4% in 2023. The Daily Bread Food Bank expects four million visits to its food banks in 2025, double the visits from two years ago. Food bank use is up 142% since 2015. From the field to the fork, costs and, hence, prices are rising. It is often said that farmers are the first link in the food chain, which is actually not quite accurate.”
“No private sector insurance company takes on the massive risks that our farmers do without some form of government intervention to aid with those costs. The private sector simply will not do it on its own. Farmers need to survive to another season in the face of disastrous losses. Government policies also have a negative impact on the cost of food, and that is why we are here today. The Prime Minister said at the swearing-in of his cabinet on May 13, “Canadians will hold account by their experience at the grocery store.” The grade is in. Food Banks Canada gave Canada a D on poverty and food insecurity, which rose almost 40% over the past two years.”
“The last and most important factor is the international trading arena. At times, especially in today's environment, everything, from border measures to tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, etc., has an impact on how food is marketed. Why do I say this? What is my point? Government policies can have a positive impact on the cost of food for citizens by creating the climate that balances the power between buyers and sellers, through healthy competition, which drives innovation and drives lower costs to the final consumer. Every functioning government around the world is involved in agriculture and agriculture markets to different degrees to bring about food security. I should quickly mention one other area, and that is the whole area of production insurance or crop insurance.”
“The second factor is the ratio of buyers and sellers. We know about oligopolies and monopolies. We have discussed in this chamber and at the agriculture committee the food retail sector and the development of a grocery code of conduct to address concerns about how values transfer between our food processors and manufacturers to the retail sector. This obviously also applies to the areas of telecom, airlines and banking. The third factor is the complexity of the biology, or the size of the investment. It is a little different when one builds a dairy herd, a vineyard or an orchard. There is an expression that one plants pears for one's heirs. It takes seven years to bring pears into a full harvest, versus the annual crops I am used to, which I have another shot at next year.”
“However, markets only work sustainably when there is a balance of power between buyers and sellers. Over time, structures and regulations, if we want to call them that, have developed to bring about that balance of power. The less the better, obviously, but over time, four things, in my mind, particularly apply to agriculture and, to a varying extent, to different food products. The first factor is the perishability of food. I will illustrate. If we were to negotiate the price of a glass of milk, a tomato or a bushel of wheat, but we do not agree today and want to come back two weeks later to pick up the discussion, the value of those three different items will have certainly depreciated differently. Therefore, there are different mechanisms that bring about a timely response to perishability and determining price.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. On food and food security, governments around the world have the desire and, indeed, the responsibility to ensure that their citizens can afford food. What has an impact on the price of food? There are obviously many things: weather, the cost of inputs, trade wars, government policy and many other things. I am a Conservative, so I believe that the market mechanism is the most efficient way to transfer the value of goods and services between buyers and sellers, between parties, and to account for all the impactful factors that I previously mentioned. This applies to all sectors in our economy and, indeed, to agriculture and the agri-food industry.”
“For 15 years she also organized “Party Under the Stars”, a non-partisan fundraiser supporting veterans and first responders through post-traumatic wellness programs. To Cheri, I give thanks from me and from Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, as members rose and gave our first speeches in this place, we thanked our families and our volunteers for helping us get here. Now, as we carry out our legislative agenda, we rely on others to help us carry out our work. They do not often get the recognition they deserve. They are our staff. On June 30, Cheri Elliott will retire after nearly 20 years of tireless service to our Conservative team. She began her journey in 2004 with Merv Tweed, the former member for Brandon—Souris, and went on to serve the hon. Vic Toews, the hon. Rob Nicholson and the hon. Candice Bergen, as well as Damien Kurek, and I can say his name today, and myself. Last night's gathering showed that Cheri has been much more than a staffer. She has been a mentor, a friend and a trusted guide to many across the Hill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome to the chamber my colleague across the way as a new colleague. The new Prime Minister , as the party wants him to be known, has also introduced the concept of new accounting. With all the measures that the member outlined in her speech, what would be her rationale for the thought that the government should now split the main estimates and the record of debt into two separate categories: operational versus capital spending? Is it to capture differential interest rates on our debt, which keeps on growing and growing? What would be the rationale for that? Is it actually to provide the mirage of a balance in one portion while we continue to incur debt for our next generations?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to say that the new Prime Minister has introduced something new, and I wonder what my colleague thinks of it. He has proclaimed that he is going to account for things differently. He is going to separate spending into two categories, operational and capital. My colleague referenced the deficits that have been announced, the deficits that are projected out for the next three years. How would this accounting make a difference on the interest that Canadians pay and the debt that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will incur?”
“Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time that you have acknowledged me, I want to say you look good in that chair. I want to congratulate the member across the way for his impassioned speech about how the Liberal government knows better than Canadians know about what they should be doing with their futures. Is it the intention of the government to expand this mandate to tractors? I come from the farm. Will it be expanded to tractors, possibly to construction equipment, and if not, why not?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to welcome my colleague to the chamber. I, too, come from the private sector. On the subject of light bulbs, the government of Ontario did not ban incandescent light bulbs. To the member opposite, what it did was put a target out there. We met yesterday, and a year ago actually, with global and domestic automakers, and they said to give them targets. They are not opposed, and neither is the Conservative Party opposed, to EVs. However, we are saying the private sector will find the most efficient and best solution to get to targets. That is what we are hearing from global manufacturers. Would my colleague agree that the private sector is best positioned to meet the challenges that we, as a society, face?”